Meta

Quote note (#338)

Twitter’s precarious position has left some users — traditionally those on the left — calling for Twitter to be pseudo-nationalized by the federal government through “social network neutrality” or classifying the platform as a public utility. Applying traditional monopoly analysis, they argue that Twitter’s dominant market positions could allow it to unfairly downplay competing services or prioritize the company’s own related commercial interests. Others say that privacy concerns should compel some kind of government regulation. […] Interestingly, these tides have recently turned. These days, I more often hear people on the right make the argument that services like Twitter should be run by the federal government. (Many on the left, meanwhile, have turned to petitioning internal social-network regulatory bodies, like Twitter’s aforementioned Trust and Safety Council, to implement their desired platform changes.) The baroque reasoning goes like this: Private companies don’t have to afford the same kinds of free speech rights that the federal government does. If the federal government takes control of the platform, U.S. users will be afforded the due process and First Amendment protections many feel are owed to them on Twitter. […] But the inherent surveillance and procedural problems presented by this “solution” should be immediately apparent. What’s more, the Twitter user base extends to millions of people outside of U.S. borders. Some Americans might not mind if their government ran a major social network, but plenty of people around the world certainly would. And let’s not forget HealthCare.Gov; the federal government doesn’t have the best track record running major public websites.

years ago before the conservative ink went full cuck they were touting a political diagram that said yes. it essentially had anarchy at one end and increasing authority as you moved along the line to the other end. Predictably republicanism was in the just right center.I suppose this is what led to the four box model a bit later.

But when you say communism I hear Stalin, Mao, Davos. When NRX hears communism they hear demotism democracy (AIACC america is a communist country-MM). So Nrx would say absolute monarchy is more like majority shareholder, back when cecil rhodes could raise his own army.

To me stalin is the problem with monarchy. No matter how committed to demotism hierarchy prevails in human organization. The problem doesn’t seem to me to be pitchforks it seems the mechanism for choosing leaders, particularly over time.Leaders choose themselves pitchforks are manipulated into seconding these self nominations, its part of how leaders become worthy- they conquer. certainly that’s a halfway decent sieve but it could use a lot of improvement. Republicanism/democracy sought to set up a proving ground kind of like evolution or capitalism. Like capitalism sometime the players conspire to rig the game to limit the competition allowing them greater odds or the ability to sell their own chances slightly reduced for a guaranteed outcome below the top.

NRX seems to think if they outright award players ownership they will not game their odds.I cant be bothered to list again the many reasons this is absurd, except to say it may solve one tiny aspect of a problem ignoring everything else

Friedrich Reply:March 3rd, 2017 at 3:17 pm

>To me stalin is the problem with monarchy.

Yet monarchies typically produce Stalins at a much lower rate than nominally demotist systems. In my view in a demotist case you are explicitly selecting leaders for not being squeamish, so you are doing worse than random as a result. Perhaps Greeks had a point with their lotteries after all.

collen ryan Reply:March 3rd, 2017 at 1:43 pm

Thats almost exactly the analogy I used for decades to describe the politics i found in northern Idaho, and later much of rural america. Unlike the east coast where both sides had a fixed set of issues you were expected to support all of, in the rural areas it seemed like a liberal was as likely to support gun rights and a conservative suspicious of capital. I said rural politics were so left and so right they met around back.
In some ways this was refreshing to not confront a wall of stale talking points, on the other I was appalled conservatives could not see the real threat of leftism the socialism and that they seemed hung up on conspiracy theories like an unholy alliance of elites both marxist and capitalist engineering a new world order to supplant american sovereignty. How could these rubes not see capitalists and communists were enemies and could never be in a conspiracy together. – cue the idiots frightful laughter

Twitter
sans cathedral -proof tech its tempting to want to have existing tech declared a utility to remove their monopoly on speech. There is certainly a huge push by the left to control/ criminalize non left speech, in europe its pretty much a done deal. Americans seem confident they only need to overcome this technicality that these functional monopolies enjoy the rights of property owners.Since its pretty clear these private property owners are in fact conspiring with the govt conservatives of the alt right (used broadly) are not too worried about precedent of private property rights being broken. This group of “conservatives” has pretty much come to accept that the only principle that matters at this point is winning by any means necessary.The problem is they are correct that we are in a lawless age, and so they are wrong that forcing these utilities to be declared such will give them any speech security. Its just as likely once they are quasi government entities the left will argue they must then be held to the more rigorous non discrimination rules the government must adhere to.
Of course Landian NRx assures us our salvation is tech however every day the left deploys better tech while we deploy shit. The appropriate response is war. If Nrx does not feel they can win a traditional shooting guerilla (which seems like a last resort) war they should figure out how they can win the war by other means. If they were a tenth as intelligent as they like to imagine themselves this wouldn’t be so hard the limits of war are the limits of imagination. Perhaps the problem is not imagination, its worth noting they are philosophically oriented around running away , which they call exit. But of course the essence of the cathedral is globalism /universalism ie: no exit so Nrx is not going anywhere except down the memory hole.

The cure might be worse than the disease, but the computer/internet network monopolies that exist in reality are quite content to serve as arms of the Cathedral and to engage in rent-seeking activities.

Perhaps one day there will be technological developments that render these monopolies obsolete, or at least allow for routing around them, but we don’t yet possess such technology.

Judging by how such tech is currently treated its doubtful any improved technology will be allowed to be used by civilians. These tech developers are more than willing to follow communist china’s rules to make money there,do you think when the cathedral continues to insist on similar controls they will fall on their swords. All of their protests thus far have been meaningless PR stunts that hide they are deep state contractors.Since 911 we are no longer nations subject to laws.

@Irving@ Friedrich we both know thats not true NRx has 2-3 monarchs they like to trot out the rest were problematic but that aside stalin at least was much more sovereign than most monarchs. monarchy does not solve the ownership problem. Monarchs were allmost always just politicians having to constantly jocky to sustain power and delegate power and this during times when it might even have been conceivable for a single extraordinary man to have knowledge of all things which is simply ridiculous today.